Epstein Secrets

rds as part of investigation into whether police officers violated federal criminal civil rights statute when making arrests. The District Court, Arcara, J., held that federal grand jury was entitled to transcripts and tapes of state grand jury testimony of uncooperating police officers. Mot

cases, Congress clearly indicated its intent not to disturb well-established precedent forbidding piecemeal review of grand jury proceedings. In Cobbledick v. United States, 309 U.S. 323, 60 S.Ct. 540, 84 L.Ed. 783 (1940), decided eighteen years before Congress enacted section 1292(b), the Supreme Cou

ords as pan of investigation into whether police officers violated federal criminal civil rights statute when making arrests. The District Court, Arcara, J., held that federal grand jury was entitled to' transcripts and tapes of state grand jury testimony of uncooperating police officers. Mot

cases, Congress clearly indicated its intent not to disturb well-established precedent forbidding piecemeal review of grand jury prorppdings. In Cobbledick v. United States, 309 U.S. 323, 60 S.Q. 540, 84 L.Ed. 783 (1940), decided eighteen years before Congress enacted section 1292(b), the Supreme Cour

rds as part of investigation into whether police officers violated federal criminal civil rights statute when making arrests. The District Court, Arcara, J.. held that federal grand jury was entitled to transcripts and tapes of state grand jury testimony of uncooperating police officers. Mot

cases, Congress clearly indicated its intent not to disturb well-established precedent forbidding piecemeal review of grand jury proceedings. In Cobbledick v. United States, 309 U.S. 323, 60 S.Ct. 540, 84 L.Ed. 783 (1940), decided eighteen years before Congress enacted section 1292(b), the Supreme Cou